, 1887-01-19
PROSECUTION OF MR.. DILLON. III. P.
DAILY Telegraph.

S4fOutO not give SuUclenJ Sur0CloS LOT MS
good behaviour. Notwithstanding the in
clemency of the weather, several ladies'
we're present, and the body Of the court
was crowded. In the central hall a consid-
cradle number of people collected before
the opening of the proceedings and when
Mr.. Dillon arrived he was greeted with a
cheer. He entered the court shortly after
eleven O'Clock, accompanied by Mr.. William
O'Brien, Mr.. Joseph Biggar, NJ. p, and
Sir Thomas Grattan EsmOnde, NJ. P, who
took their seats at the counSpl'S table. Mr..
Thomas Sexton, M. P, and two or three
other Irish members of Parliament were
present, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin
(Mr. u D. Sullivan.
Mr.. Dillon said, before proceeding TO
make the few observations in his own de-
fence he wished to take this opportunity of
thanking the counsel who hal appeared
for him, and to say that in throwing up
their briefs they had his fullest approval,
as, in view of the judgment of the Court
on the question of the reception Of oral
evidence, they were prrcluded from being
able to do any thing further for him. He
felt that he was in a position Of much diff
Guilty here. He was not a trained law
yer, and although not unaccuStOmed to
public speaking, he was unaccuStomed to
speak in courts, and if he offended against
the technical rules he trusted to be favour
ed with the indulgence of their lOrdShipS.
lie had only two arguments to advance in
his own behalf. First, he stood accused
of having used language which he contend
Ell was perfectly justified in using in the
circumstances of the country and the posi-
ton he occupied. He was prepared to
stand by and defend the language he had
used, and considered he was not only justi.
fed in using il but he would be seriously
false to his duty and the representative
position he occupied if he had not used it.
He intended to endeavOur to maintain that
position. and also to endeavOur to SHOW
that the Act which was put in force against
him was strained from the original inten-
tons of those who made it. He admitted
fully that he advised combination among
the t%enantry of Ireland, not because he
wanted to bring about lawleSSnpSs or dis
order, but because he wanted to save the
Irish people from the destruction and mise
~ which had followed a similar condition
of things in times gone past. The agita-
ton was put on foot to save the people
from ruin and exterminatiOn, and, by law
fully red eSSing their grievances, prevent
them from engaging in crime. If he (Mr.
DiltOn) WAS guilty, Sir r. Butler was also
guilty, because both were doing the same
thing. though by different melns-he (Mr.
DillOn) dy urging the tenants to combine,
and Sir r. Butler by refusing police pro-
lection bringing pressure TO bear upOn
the landlords to reduce rack rents. If the
tenants erred at all they erred on the side
of moderation, and the reductions they
asked fell short of the strict Justice of the
ease. The agitation was abundanlly JUS
tilted, both by the action of the Land
Courts and the action of the Executive
Government the IDSPlveS. When the move
ment commenced they did not think they
would have Sir Michael Hicks Beach aud
the CASTLE as their allies, but they had
good reason TO know now that they were
reducing to reason the men whom the Gas.
tie could not reduce to reason. The move
ment was intended to prevent extermina-
tion of the people on the one side, and on
the other to stay the hand of the midnight
assassin. The people had loyalty and
honourably responded to the call made up
ON them, and never in the history of the
country was it SO free from crime as at
present. AS to another aspect of the case
he was of opinion that it was distorting a
law, which had never been intended for
such a purpose, to bring it forward in such
a case as this. 1t was not intended to APP
ply to speeches made in public, and it had
never been put in force in England in such
q case. lift was illegal why did they not
iHdict him. He had challenged the Attor.